I’ve been asking that question since Edward Snowden arrived in our lives.
Generally, I’m all for leakers. I mean, I’m a journalist. I like it when people tell me stuff. When I was living in Kentucky and covering Appalachia back in the early ‘70’s, I was introduced to somebody ensconced in the permanent government in Washington, D.C. the kind of official who often has concerns about whoever is purporting to run the country. In those simple pre-electronic days, the official would forego the note under the flower pot, the tactic used by Deep Throat. He would ring me on his government phone and fulminate. “You wouldn’t believe what this gang of thugs is doing,” he would begin. He told me about a couple of Nixonites assigned to dismantle the anti-poverty programs of the Johnson administration. Then I would drive a few hours into the mountains, where school lunches or medical transportation or legal aid were in jeopardy. One demolisher in the O.E.O. was named Rumsfeld and the other was named Cheney. I often wonder what became of them. Now we have gone from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate to Julian Assange and on to Edward Snowden. The first time I heard his name, Jeffrey Toobin was calling him a narcissist on television. Interesting choice of words from somebody I respect, I thought. Now I have come to think Toobin was on to something. From reading about Snowden, he has come to remind me of Maxwell the Pig on the Geico commercials, with his youthful self-involvement (“My name is Maxwell and my life is kind of awesome”) who likes to go fast downhill and scream “Wheeee!!!” at the top of his voice. At the moment, Snowden appears to be residing in a transit zone of the Moscow airport with government laptops. What was his plan? Why did he run? Should I be angered at learning the U.S. had access to zillions of telephone records? I always figured they did. These days, we all have chips embedded in us. Look at me, voluntarily spewing off. Every time I go over a bridge around New York, E-Z Pass has a record of which borough I was in, and at what time. In the days after 9/11, I kept reassuring people (maybe myself) that the Bush administration would know how to go after bad guys. Of course, I over-rated the competence of those people, but eventually another administration tracked down Osama. Did they use electronic surveillance? Do you think? I tend to trust Barack Obama quite a bit, but I can recall some administrations I trusted not at all. I can understand why people worry about a government that collects phone records. Far from any authority or real information, I think govern-ments and newspapers are discrete about some parts of national security, but I also love learning stuff. On a case-by-case basis I cannot help thinking this leaker has done some damage. 7/2/2013 01:30:15 am
I think you're right, George. It's kind of hard to believe in the post-9/11 world (and pre-whatever ugly thing you care to imagine next) that the government would NOT be using all the latest Big Data tools to sift through and analyze the massive amounts of personal communication data going in and out of the country. If I understand correctly what is actually happening now -- with judicial oversight and reasonable checks and balances -- I am OK with this. (And by the way, anyone is free to track my EZ-PASS movements to and fro CitiField.) But the point you raise is also a good one: What are the risks to our privacy and civil liberties if these tools are not applied with the right intent by a not-so-benevolent government? It's a concern, and the Snowden Affair should prompt a review of the safeguards supposedly in place. But at the end of the day, we can't live in fear of evil forces taking over the spy capabilities of this nation. Seems to me that's the same kind of fear and insecurity that has prevented any kind of reasonable gun control from taking place. Thanks, George.
George Vecsey
7/2/2013 01:48:34 am
Pete, thanks so much. We all know governments have been intrusive. I've seen the 2006 German movie The Lives of Others (Das Leben Der Anderen) a couple of times, probably a realistic view of what the Stasi was doing to very private lives in East Germany. It's chilling. Then there was our Stasi, J. Edgar Hoover. And Nixon and Watergate. So I get the need for safeguards. On the other hand, so many people are voluntarily expressing their beliefs. (Like right here.) GV
Ed Martin
7/2/2013 10:14:34 am
george, it is perfectly alright for younto express your views. Now, please turn your head a little to the right, that's it. Smile! Thank you.
Brian Savin
7/2/2013 10:57:29 am
The Guardian is a fine paper; it's interesting that they made the decision they did. The news the last few days was that the leaks were done, the computers empty. However, the Guardian reported this morning that Mr. Snowden withdrew his request to Russia for asylum after Putin said he would welcome the application if Snowden stopped harming U.S. interests. So, I guess we will all stay tuned to learn more.
Brian Savin
7/2/2013 03:39:56 pm
Tonight's news about the Bolivian President's jet being rerouted under American pressure because of the belief Snowden was on board would be unbelievable, if there were not a rich history of Ugly American behavior for us to be ashamed of already. What are we to think? That our President will be appropriately diplomatic with China and Russia but will treat Bolivia as a, forgive me, "banana republic"?
Thor A. Larsen
7/5/2013 08:26:55 am
I do believe that Ed Snowden has caused some harm to our surveillance system by sharing tp secret files etc. There is no excuse for someone working in highly classified work to take it upon himself to DECIDE to go public. If he wasn't just an egotistical arrogant individual, he could have gone to his congressman or senator to seek counsel.. We know the government is keeping taps on almost all electronics that we engage in, as well as corporations for whom we may be emloyed, howver, we do expect appropriate limitations on who views the information and action taken, if considered necessary. Is it not the use of a broad range of monitoring that the Boston Marathon bombers were known beofr ethe attack, albeit no action taken. I would rather that the monitoring be very extensive to assure security and as far as my private deaings, I have nothing ot hide.
Brian Savin
7/5/2013 12:33:30 pm
Thor, I'll shoulder all criticism for this, my comment: I couldn't disagree with you more. You assume good will and intelligent judgment. However, without absolute checks, known and feared in advance for their effectiveness, there is no judgment; there is no good will; there is only inevitable corruption, abuse and faulty judgment self-excused by "higher goals" that are self defined. I've read too many dystopian works of art in my time and, like all good science fiction, there is much truth to their lessons and warnings.
Thor A. Larsen
7/5/2013 12:49:21 pm
Thanks for your views, Brian and I simply do not agree that there are no valid checks and balances on our security systems. They may not be perfect and need periodically to be reviewed and improved upon, and I believe we have congressional committees to assist in this area. Are you suggesting that it is approriate for one or many Ed Snowdens to go public on security work they had agreed to keep confidential so that those leaks become your version of 'absolute checks'?
Ed Martin
7/5/2013 01:38:17 pm
I find that Thor pretty well speaks my mind. It is hard to ignore shoe bombers, Marathon Bombers, or for that matter the danger from the Minutemen groups and others tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They are there and they are threats. So, how do we try to minimize the damage? Some folks see a privacy threat from traffic cameras, rather than saying, "don't go through red lights." I do understand the possibility of "bad" government over-reacting, but so far I do not see that kind of danger and I think the Congress and Courts can respond effectively to excesses.
George Vecsey
7/6/2013 01:58:11 am
My high-school classmate Thor and I agree most of the way. I want the government to go after the bad guys, and I agree that the court system is a valid check. But for those who cite the reliability and clear-headedness of congressional committees, I have only two words -- Darrell and Issa. And I think of snooping by J. Edgar, and Nixon's enemies lists. We all have things we don't want others to know. But Thor and I agree -- we expect the U.S. government to track down bad people. What does that entail? I appareciate the high level of discourse here. GV 7/7/2013 10:40:06 am
I agree that government should protect us from the bad guys and that the court system should be a valid check. However, not all of the threats to our society are external. Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|